A Misconception Regarding Catholicism And Mormonism's Exclusivity Claims.

[Chris Smith]

To have the power to bind things on earth and heaven, that sounds like the definition of priesthood authority to me.

That may be the definition of priesthood authority in Latter-day Saintism, but Judaism, Catholicism, and Protestantism have a somewhat different perspective. It's telling that neither here nor anywhere else in the first two centuries of Christianity do we read about Christian "priesthood authority". In any case, if this is the definition of priesthood authority then it is not restricted to ordained persons. Rather, it is strikingly like the "priesthood of all believers" in that it is available to any "two of you on earth".

Protestants are too divided to be right.

What does that have to do with anything?

-CK

[bluebell]

Bluebell,

I thought this might happen. I AM NOT CONDEMNING YOU FOR YOUR BELIEFS! I am simply pointing out our differences as they pertain to the nature of Jesus Christ and why WE evangelical christians believe it is important to place our faith in the correct object God desires us to place it in. I'm not saying I'm right and your wrong, only that we are on different sides of this issue. That's all.

These things are relative to salvation because they determine whether one knows the true Jesus Christ or if he worships in vain.

No worries, i know you're not condemning me personally.

However, i have a question in regards to your last statment (in bold).

Do you believe the theif on the cross (you know, the 'today shalt thou be with me in paradise' one) was saved?

If you do-did it matter to Christ whether or not He knew all those things that you listed before about Him? Did Christ care if the theif, for example, didn't know about the Trinity as you understand it? Or that Christ was supposed to be prayed to?

I absolutely disagree with any notion that we can be saved by our works in addition to grace.

Then you disagree with a whole epistle in the new testament (a book which, if i understand the protestant belief correctly, you also believe it is a sin to remove any teachings from and which you believe is infallible).

James 2:24-

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

James clearly says-it is not ONLY faith that saves us.

Since you asked, I believe it is an insult to Jesus to assume that he needs anything from you to assist in salvation.

I also believe it is an insult to assume that Jesus needs anything from you to assist in salvation-i don't believe He needs it, i believe He requires it.

But your statement brings about an interesting question. If Christ does not require anything from us-then why does He ask us to have faith in Him before He will save us?

Works are important to the christian but only because they are a RESULT of salvation, not because they save. Works here on earth lead to pleasing God and the buiding up of riches for in the heavens. They also lead to blessings here on Earth in this life. But ultimately it is God's loving grace that saves us when we embrace Him.

So, in your belief, can someone be saved who has no good works?

[PacMan]

CK:

I seriously doubt that the Holy Spirit is limited to a single methodology.

When weâ??re talking of authority, Hebrews 5:4 makes it pretty clear: â??And no man taketh this honourâ?¦but that he is called of God as Aaron.â?

I'd say there are plenty of examples of the Holy Spirit indwelling people without any laying on of hands.

And we recognize it as a difference between the influence and Gift of the Holy Ghost. The influence of the Holy Ghost confirms truth, while the Gift of the Holy Ghost is the baptism by fire (for starters). Moreover, weâ??re speaking of authorityâ?¦which the Holy Ghost does not give. That idea is untenable.

That is an inference some people have drawn, but I do not think it is particularly warranted.

Why not? Why didnâ??t Philip baptize him then? After Simon received baptism, he wondered after many of the works of Philip. Some time later (it seems) the Apostles came, and we get the distinct impression that the laying on of hands to give the Holy Ghost is something that he hadnâ??t seen before. Why wasnâ??t Philip participating in the action if he could?

I disagree. Matthew 18 makes it fairly evident that "the church" may loose disagreeable persons from its ranks (and, by extension, from heaven).

On the contrary (weâ??ve been through this), the â??churchâ? (which we agree mean its hierarchy) are to whom confession is done. The power, however, is specifically given to the disciples. Moreover, simply by noting the church we see a separation from those being spoken to from the general body of the church. In other words, the power to bind and seal CANNOT be said to have been given to the church because such distinction is failed to be made, where in other circumstances it is explicitly given.

This is immediately followed by the statement, "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." Who is the "you" in this passage? Is it restricted to the apostles?

Yes! Definitely. Why? Because itâ??s authorizing them to make decisions on behalf of the Savior.

There are no Christian priests in the New Testament precisely because Jesus fulfilled and thereby ended it.

So why does Paul expressly leave the possibility open, if it would under the OT law been impossible?

He had received the baptism of John, but not the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire.

Why not? Explain how you know he didnâ??t get it from Philip or via another source? Apparently, if itâ??s given to the church which he was apart of, he should have had the authority, right? Does one just simply â??knowâ? theyâ??ve received the baptism by fire if there is no process to it?

PacMan

[cdowis]

That may be the definition of priesthood authority in Latter-day Saintism, but Judaism, Catholicism, and Protestantism have a somewhat different perspective.

It is interesting that you can speak for so many religions. I think the Catholics would agree with me, but apparently the Pope gave you authority to speak for Catholicism.

It's telling that neither here nor anywhere else in the first two centuries of Christianity do we read about Christian "priesthood authority".

I find it more interesting that you know very little about the New Testament. I could give you more references, but you are able to speak for so many religions.

In any case, if this is the definition of priesthood authority then it is not restricted to ordained persons.

Do I disagree with you? I was responding to the notion that priesthood is not mentioned in the NT. It is mentioned in this scripture as well as elsewhere.

Rather, it is strikingly like the "priesthood of all believers" in that it is available to any "two of you on earth".

What does that have to do with anything?

-CK

[Paul Ray]

Hello all,

I just wanted to make a point or two regarding all of the comments I've seen around here that speak to the belief that God's "true church" can only be the Roman Catholic Church or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints due to the exclusivity claims made by each. I happen to be an Evangelical Christian. Most of you would label me a "Protestant". This brings me to the heart of the issue I have. Comments have been made that protestants would go down with the catholics were the Roman Catholic Church's "one true church" exclusivity claim incorrect.

That is true. If the Roman Catholic Church was ever the result of true church of Christ then any group that broke away from it was an apostate group.

I totally disagree with this on the basis of the fact that there is NO evidence that Peter was ever a "Pope" or that there was ever even a "Papacy" in place until few hundred of years after Jesus Christ was crucified.

I agree with that statement, but that's besides the point you were first arguing against.

If the Roman Catholic Church was NEVER a group of believers that compromised the true church of Christ, then the Roman Catholic church was simply an apostate group that either split off from the true church of Christ OR another group independent of the true church.

In addition, there is also no evidence of there having been a system of "cardinals" and "bishops" during the life of Jesus or immediately thereafter (Jesus was crucified circa 30AD).

I agree with what I think you are thinking.

In fact, the Jews were actually expelled from Rome circa 50 AD, and Peter (if there) would have been one of them (especially since it was his job to minister to them).

I agree with that too, if I understand you correctly.

My point is that the earliest christians were NOT Roman Catholic. They had been students of Jesus Christ, or disciples with the Apostles, or had been evangelized by the Apostles/new disciples in their travels.

I agree.

The book of Acts gives us a great look at the early church and it looked NOTHING like the Roman Catholic Church. In all of Paul's letters to the various churches there is never any mention of Peter as Pope or that any special deference should be given Peter. Paul teaches nothing similar to catholic tradition, and Peter himself in 1Peter and 2Peter gives us nothing that would even come close to resembling catholic traditonal beliefs and practices.

I believe there are a few similarities between the RCC and true Christianity, but, as you mentioned, there are some areas in which they stand out as being different.

You simply cannot get Roman Catholicism from the Bible. It's just not there.

I agree.

Now, please understand that I'm not trying to trash Roman Catholicism. Moreover, I certainly am NOT going to attempt to pass judgements on the hearts of Roman Catholics in the same way I would NEVER judge the hearts of the Latter Day Saints or ANYONE for that matter. I am only trying to point out that the fate of so-called "protestants" is definately NOT riding on whether or not the Roman Catholic Church is the "one true church".

You seem to misunderstand what that statement is saying. Let's see if it helps if I rephrase it a little.

If the group of believers that later became known as the Roman Catholic church was ever the true church of Christ, then any group that broke away from that group (for whatever reason) while that group was the true church of Christ was an apostate group of the true church of Christ.

... which would mean, for example, that if Luther and those with him broke away from the group that is now known as the Roman Catholic Church while that group was the true church of Christ, then Luther and all those who separate(d) themselves from what is now known as the Roman Catholic Church with him (aka Lutherans) were/are apostates of the true church of Jesus Christ.

Of course, if the group that later became known as the Roman Catholic Church had never been the true church of Christ to begin with, or if it had ceased to be the true church of Christ before Luther had broke away, then the Roman Catholic Church and all the other groups that ever broke away from it were either apostate groups that had never been part of the true church of Christ or they broke away from it before it was itself apostate.

Evangelical Christians were here years BEFORE the Roman Catholic Church was ever even close to being organized.

Which Evangelical Christian group(s) are you referring to, exactly?

Can you tell me about their history, or histories?

I say this because I am going on the teachings of Jesus, Peter, John, and Paul in regards to what THEY taught in the Bible.

Ahh, I think I see now.

Do you see how that is different than going on the teachings of people who are alive today and who now have God's authority to act for God in today's world?

I believe the true church of Jesus Christ, today, is like the church of Jesus Christ of the past.

... and I think you and I disagree on that concept.

Even if you do believe that Jesus made Peter the "rock upon which the church is built" (which I do not, but that is yet another argument for another day), that still does not give you "Roman Catholicism".

Again, I agree.

But from who or what did we get what is known as Evangelical Chrisitanity?

Do you have any reason to believe your group is the true church of Jesus Christ, and can you back that up with any basis in history?

It is my assertion that it was Roman Catholicism that broke off of Evangelical Christianity, took charge and then had the nerve to label christians "protestants" when they broke away and decided to reform.

Do you believe they took over what were your church buildings and historical documents too?

At what time did they do that, based on your personal perspective?

Please give me your version of history as you now understand it.

If Roman Catholicism is indeed not the "true church" it has absolutely NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on "protestantism".

But what if it WAS at one time?

Would that have any bearing on who they are and who apostasized in the past?

I think it should, and I think we can find traces of what happened in history.

Evangelical Christians may have some minor differences (especially in practices) but we are ALL united when it comes to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Do you really believe that?

If so, please tell me which Evangelical Christians now have the actual authority of God like the apostles once had in the past, including the authority to write to all churches to try to get them into harmony with what they know is the true word of God, and where I can read all that they have now written.

We believe the "one true church" is comprised of all those who accept Jesus Christ by faith as Lord and Savior.

We (LDS) believe that, too, and the fact that some don't shows us they are not with us.

I understand that many of you here will disagree with my above statement as it pertains to what we, evangelical christians, believe about what exactly is the "true church". That's okay. I did not post this in an attempt to convince anyone that they are wrong about what they believe it to be. I am posting this because I have seen many LDS post topics in an attempt to clarify what they believe and why they believe it when someone gets it wrong. As an Evangelical Christian I am simply doing the same thing. I also understand that my using the term "evangelical" will make some of you cringe.

It's nice to meet you, Ocean. I love learning about all people, including Christians.

I stand in disagreement with any evangelical christian that has ever attempted to judge your heart in regards to God or Salvation. I simply consider myself a humble christian, not a "protestant this" or an "evangelical that". I do however disagree with the LDS claims to being the "one true church", but I support your right to believe it.

That's nice to know.

I believe that it's necessary to inform others when you disagree, but it is not our place to judge them.

I believe it's okay to judge people, as long as we do not condemn them, at least not without having the authority to do that.

A civil judge has the authority to condemn criminals, for instance, as soon as the case has been settled.

Anyway I hope I have clarified the christian stance on the Roman Catholic claims to exclusivity and how that relates to us "protestants".

IMO, you''ve only clarified YOUR stance on Roman Catholic claims (...) and the claims of some others who also believe as you do.

God Bless You All,

Bless you too, brother. I hope you have a good day.

[Pantsman]

I find it interesting that the Council of Nicea was called by Emporer Constantine, and the representative from Rome did not play any particular leadership role in this Council.

Apparently the Christians at that time did not recognize Rome in any way prominent in Christian leadership. Certainly not the Seat of Peter.

That isn't correct, there are tons of writings showing the Bishop of Rome to have primacy over the other Bishops. To say "Apparently the Christians at that time did not recognize Rome in any way prominent in Christian leadership. Certainly not the Seat of Peter" is patently false.

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: â??I say to you,â?? he says, â??that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. ... â?? [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before himâ??when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

The Little Labyrinth

"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peterâ??s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9â??10 [A.D. 312]).

[Pantsman]

I totally disagree with this on the basis of the fact that there is NO evidence that Peter was ever a "Pope" or that there was ever even a "Papacy" in place until few hundred of years after Jesus Christ was crucified.

Sure there was all "Pope" is is an affectionate name for the Bishop of Rome. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome and the head of the Church on Earth. Are you saying Peter wasn't the Bishop of Rome and head of the Church? Christ gave him the head of the Church when he changed His name (look in the Bible to when God changed someones name it always has major significance) to Kepha and said upon this Kepha I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Christ instructed Peter to feed His sheep and he did.

[PacMan]

Pants,

Are you saying Peter wasn't the Bishop of Rome and head of the Church?

I am.

Christ gave him the head of the Church when he changed His name (look in the Bible to when God changed someones name it always has major significance) to Kepha and said upon this Kepha I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Christ instructed Peter to feed His sheep and he did.

I'm OK with that...but what about the sons of Zebedee when their names were changed to the "Sons of Thunder?"

PAcMan

[Pantsman]

Oceansun,

Thatâ??s completely untrue! 1800 Bishops were invited to the counsel of Nicea, and the vast number of Ariusâ?? sympathizers were detained. Thatâ??s why there were only some 300-400 Bishops present, PacMan

Request for documentation, to insinuate that the 1,500 Bishops that didn't show up at Nicea was because the Church had Arius' sympathizers detained is nonsense. You have to show that they were successful in detaining 1,500 pro Arius Bishops. Maybe they were very far away and couldn't get to Nicea since they were busy running their Churches?

How many of your Bishops go to general conference? If not every single one shows up is it not a real general conference? Were all the Apostles, Bishops and presbyters present in Acts chapter 15?

[PacMan]

Pants,

Request for documentation, to insinuate that the 1,500 Bishops that didn't show up at Nicea was because the Church had Arius' sympathizers detained is nonsense.

Request all you want. I didn't say that. Strawman.

How many of your Bishops go to general conference? If not every single one is not a real general conference? Were all the Apostles, Bishops and presbyters present in Acts chapter 15?

Bishops have no authority to regulate doctrine, so the example is futile.

PacMan

[Pantsman]

Pants,

I am.

PAcMan

Well you're wrong, Peter was the Bishop of Rome, Peter was given primacy by Christ Himself.

[Pantsman]

Pants,

Request all you want. I didn't say that. Strawman.

Bishops have no authority to regulate doctrine, so the example is futile.

PacMan

You said:

"Thatâ??s completely untrue! 1800 Bishops were invited to the counsel of Nicea, and the vast number of Ariusâ?? sympathizers were detained. Thatâ??s why there were only some 300-400 Bishops present, PacMan"

Now give me documentation that the "vast" number of Arius' supporters were detained and that is why only 300-400 Bishops showed up. Stop screaming "strawman" at things that aren't logical fallicies and provide the documentation please.

[selek]

Sure there was all "Pope" is is an affectionate name for the Bishop of Rome. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome and the head of the Church on Earth. Are you saying Peter wasn't the Bishop of Rome and head of the Church? Christ gave him the head of the Church when he changed His name (look in the Bible to when God changed someones name it always has major significance) to Kepha and said upon this Kepha I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Christ instructed Peter to feed His sheep and he did.

What we have here (despite all the handwaving and shouting to the contrary) is a binary solution set.

Choice 0- The Catholic Church is indeed the logical outgrowth and authorized successor to the Apostles (Christ's authorized servants and proxies). If this is the case, then all of the Protestant groups and the Mormons are apostates whom they rightfully cut off long ago.

Choice 1- The Catholic Church either never was or subsequently lost its authority as God's true church. If this is the case, then the Protestants are shoots from the same poisoned root (intended as metaphor, not insult).

If the Catholic Church is not what it claims to be, then the Protestants are merely sectarian offshoots of an apostate body- having no right or authority of thier own.

Circular arguments about a "priesthood of all beleivers"- a concept that conveniently didn't surface until the Protestants needed justification for their usurped authority- do not convey the authority needed to reform the Church.

Nor do appeals to the Scriptures convey such authority- as is witnessed by the number of Protestant sects each teaching (usually contradictory) "Correct" versions of the "one true faith."

Finally, the "Whole and Complete, Unabridged, Unalterable, and Copyrighted By God Himself" claims made about the Bible were a further attempt by the Protestants to justify their schism with Rome (while falling into precisely the same pattern as the Catholic Church).

Officially, the Protestants needed to "reform" the Church from the "extra-Biblical" precepts that had crept into Roman Catholic worship over the centuries. Lacking any true authority of their own, they turned to the Scriptures for justification, and boxed themselves into a nice, tight, intellectual corner from which they have yet to escape- even while adding all sorts of extra-Biblical caveats and addendum of their own.

No- if the Protestants have the authority they arrogate unto themselves, then God is a liar from the beginning.

God's house, by his own proclamation, is a house of order.

In contrast, the state of modern Protestant Christendom is less orderly than a refrigerator full of broken lightbulbs rolled down six flights of stairs and out a 30th floor window in the Empire State Building.

Without the aesthetic appeal inherent in such a concept.

[PacMan]

Pants,

Lookâ?¦Iâ??m very careful (typically) in what I say.

Well you're wrong, Peter was the Bishop of Rome, Peter was given primacy by Christ Himself.

The key word here is â??AND.â? There is no germane evidence that Peter was the Bishop of Romeâ?¦but was the presiding Bishop (and Apostle) in Rome at the time of Linusâ?¦the Bishop of Rome. I stand by what I said. Now, I could ask for germane documentationâ?¦but since it doesnâ??t exist, Iâ??ll forego the request.

Now give me documentation that the "vast" number of Arius' supporters were detained and that is why only 300-400 Bishops showed up. Stop screaming "strawman" at things that aren't logical fallicies and provide the documentation please.

Againâ?¦as Iâ??ve said, it comes from Encyclopedical summaries. Iâ??m still searching it out find find better sourcing.

Moreover, what you said was a strawman argument because itâ??d doesnâ??t hold my stated position. I never said that â??1,500 Bishopsâ?¦didn't show up at Niceaâ?¦ because the Church had Arius' sympathizers detained.â? What I DID say is that the majority of Ariusâ??s supporters were detained (which could be a small or very large percentage of the invitees), and I never accused the â??churchâ? of doing it, but likely Athanasius.

See how it's a strawman (I'm not mad...so don't you be; I'm just pointing it out)?

Peace,

PacMan

[freakin a man]

Evangelical Christians were here years BEFORE the Roman Catholic Church was ever even close to being organized.

I don't know about this. Many of the claims that Evangelicals that I have meet are did not exist in the early days like the concept of the Bible being the final authority or being complete or an end to revelation with God going on vacation for 2000 years. I simply don't see at least the modern day "Evangelical Christians" in the early days of Christianity. I guess we all see different things.

[selek]

Pants,

Lookâ?¦Iâ??m very careful (typically) in what I say.

The key word here is â??AND.â? There is no germane evidence that Peter was the Bishop of Romeâ?¦but was the presiding Bishop (and Apostle) in Rome at the time of Linusâ?¦the Bishop of Rome. I stand by what I said. Now, I could ask for germane documentationâ?¦but since it doesnâ??t exist, Iâ??ll forego the request.

Againâ?¦as Iâ??ve said, it comes from Encyclopedical summaries. Iâ??m still searching it out find find better sourcing.

Moreover, what you said was a strawman argument because itâ??d doesnâ??t hold my stated position. I never said that â??1,500 Bishopsâ?¦didn't show up at Niceaâ?¦ because the Church had Arius' sympathizers detained.â? What I DID say is that the majority of Ariusâ??s supporters were detained (which could be a small or very large percentage of the invitees), and I never accused the â??churchâ? of doing it, but likely Athanasius.

See how it's a strawman (I'm not mad...so don't you be; I'm just pointing it out)?

Peace,

PacMan

Pac and Pants (sounds like a mail order clothing shop, doesn't it?),

Before we get into another thirty page discussion about apostolic succession (or worse, Johnny drops by),

I do believe the point of the thread was that Protestant truth claims can stand independently of either of ours.

Let's kick that football around for a while before re-fighting something we know won't be solved this side of the Second Coming.

We as Catholics and Mormons have a chance here to team up and slap around the poor, beknighted Prots who are far more comfortable giving criticism than receiving.

Can't we set aside our petty partisan differences in the name of a good old-fashioned schism?

[Pantsman]

Pants,

Lookâ?¦Iâ??m very careful (typically) in what I say.

The key word here is â??AND.â? There is no germane evidence that Peter was the Bishop of Romeâ?¦but was the presiding Bishop (and Apostle) in Rome at the time of Linusâ?¦the Bishop of Rome. I stand by what I said. Now, I could ask for germane documentationâ?¦but since it doesnâ??t exist, Iâ??ll forego the request.

Againâ?¦as Iâ??ve said, it comes from Encyclopedical summaries. Iâ??m still searching it out find find better sourcing.

Moreover, what you said was a strawman argument because itâ??d doesnâ??t hold my stated position. I never said that â??1,500 Bishopsâ?¦didn't show up at Niceaâ?¦ because the Church had Arius' sympathizers detained.â? What I DID say is that the majority of Ariusâ??s supporters were detained (which could be a small or very large percentage of the invitees), and I never accused the â??churchâ? of doing it, but likely Athanasius.

See how it's a strawman (I'm not mad...so don't you be; I'm just pointing it out)?

Peace,

PacMan

""Thatâ??s completely untrue! 1800 Bishops were invited to the counsel of Nicea, and the vast number of Ariusâ?? sympathizers were detained. Thatâ??s why there were only some 300-400 Bishops present, PacMan"

So when you said the words "Thatâ??s why there were only some 300-400 Bishops present" immediately following "1800 Bishops were invited to the counsel of Nicea, and the vast number of Ariusâ?? sympathizers were detained". I am not to assume that the one has to do with the other?

It was not a strawman I did not present back a weaker argument I summarized your argument precisely and asked for documentation. If you don't like how I asked for documentation you should not have alluded that there was only 300 Bishops because a vast number of Arius's supporters were detained. You scream "strawman" on this board all the time and you almost never use it right.

[Oceansun]

Oceansun,

Thatâ??s completely untrue! 1800 Bishops were invited to the counsel of Nicea, and the vast number of Ariusâ?? sympathizers were detained. Thatâ??s why there were only some 300-400 Bishops present, even though Constantine offered to pay for travel and expenses. There was MUCH disagreement at these events, and the fact that heretics were tortured and killed adds suspicion that the Protestant movement just â??happenedâ? to be in conformity with RCC teachings. Moreover, Iâ??d love to speak of the trinity and how your understanding necessitates an inconsistent use of the scriptures to maintain tenability.

Are you thus adding to scripture?

Except we know what that means. We treat John 10 and 17 consistently.

And Ephesians with Apostles, prophets, etc., etc.

You canâ??t suggest that because there was no Christian entity in the old world outside the Catholic Church after a couple hundred A.D. What Christian group existed, and continued to exist through the Catholic reign until the present? What evidence did you have that there was even a simple fragment that existed exclusive from the Catholic church? Your claim is untenable.

Again, what of your multiple points extinguishes the LDSâ??s chances of salvation?

PacMan

Pacman,

First and foremost the New Testament was the issue taken up at the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD, quite a few years after the death of Constantine, when the church listed the 27 confirmed books of the New Testament. Both dates (Nicea & Hippo) are misleading because the church had recognized these books as the definative New Testament nearly 175 years BEFORE Nicea. It was only due to the challenge of missions, fraud, and heresy that the church leadership felt the need to clearly articulate the list.

We know from writings within the first century that many of the books of the New Testament were already regarded as scripture by that point. In the writings of Iraneus, 180 AD, he attests the canonical recognition of the four Gospels and Acts, of Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus, of 1 Peter, and 1 John, and of the book of Revelation- THAT'S MOST OF OUR NEW TESTAMENT DECIDED 150 YEARS BEFORE NICEA!!!

There is considerable evidence such as this that by 150 AD at the lastest, the church recognized a New Testament pretty close to the one we have today!

2.) If you'd like to attempt a correction of my view on the trinity, I'd be more than willing to discuss your concerns. In addition, I don't think that you would have the high ground in discussing which one us us might be "adding to scripture" as you attempted to accuse me. I think your "Doctrine and Covenants" does the arguing for me. However I'm always open to the possibility of my being in error so I will try to contact you privately through FAIR if you'll allow me, so I might discuss this with you as my daily life permits, or if you desire, start a thread and I'll chime in when I have some more time!

3.) I'm not confident you do understand John 10 & 17, consistency would not be something I'd boast about if I were in your shoes (see Book of Mormon vs. Doctrine and Covenants on nature of God, works/faith etc.).

4.) Where in Ephesians does Paul state that he is an Apostle who serves beneath a prophet? Where is the Quarum of the 70's mentioned? Infact where does it state that we will continue to REQUIRE "prophets" and "apostles"? However, the scripture IS clear that there would be FALSE prophets and apostles!

5.) Your wrong, there absolutely were Christ believing, non-denominationl (for lack of a better word) christians after Christ's death in 30 AD. The writings of Luke prove it. In fact, Luke himself is evidence of this. The Christian movement did not die with Jesus on the cross. Acts proves they existed, the writings of Paul, Peter, Timothy, John are all proof that the Apostles had masses who subscribed to their beliefs, after 30 AD, and who were in need of ministering and teaching. And we know from here in later centuries sprung the Roman Catholic Church. This isn't up for debate, it is a fact of history! During the prominence of the RCC, christians who were independent were indeed a minority, I'll even conceed a great minority, but they were NEVER extinct. It is silly to presume as much.

I would just like to add that I find it a bit odd that a mormon would be so demanding that I put forth "evidence" to back up my claims (which IS a smart thing to do by the way... I hope the writings of Iraneus will suffice). I tell you what, you provide me with "evidence" for Laminites, Nephites, and Native Americans who were already knew and spoke of Jesus Christ before the Spanish arrived in the New World and I'll convert TODAY!!!

Gotta split for a bit...

God Bless You,

Ocean

[freakin a man]

Pac and Pants (sounds like a mail order clothing shop, doesn't it?),

Before we get into another thirty page discussion about apostolic succession (or worse, Johnny drops by),

I do believe the point of the thread was that Protestant truth claims can stand independently of either of ours.

Let's kick that football around for a while before re-fighting something we know won't be solved this side of the Second Coming.

Seems to me that Catholics have a system of no apostasy with contining succession through popes.

LDS system is an apostasy with a restoration of Priesthood and office of apostles/prophets with additional scripture and prophecy

Protestants have no apostasy but no need for any succession of authority but this "priesthood of all believers" view.

Its up the the individual to decide which one makes most sense to them.

[Son]

Do you believe the theif on the cross (you know, the 'today shalt thou be with me in paradise' one) was saved?

I wonder if he was baptized. If he was married in the temple, if he had taken the sacrament, if he was a member of any organized religion.

My guess is his belief and repentance if any, was direct.

There was no earthly church built yet, no one to claim they were the way, other than Christ (the one who's authority was given by the Father).

[Paul Ray]

Sure there was. All "Pope" is is an affectionate name for the Bishop of Rome.

I agree with that.

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome and the head of the Church on Earth.

What is your support for the idea that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church on Earth?

I can understand why you would believe he would have authority over Rome, since the authority of a bishop is to preside over a certain ward (or geographic area), but what is your support for believing the bishop of Rome has authority over the whole Earth?

Are you saying Peter wasn't the Bishop of Rome and head of the Church?

I believe Peter was the head of the Church, at one time, but I see no evidence to support the idea that Peter was a bishop of Rome. There is some evidence to indicate James, the brother of Jesus, was the bishop of Rome, though, and he acted under the direction of Peter.

I don't memorize source materials, though. I just remember that I have learned that.

Christ gave him the head of the Church when he changed His name (look in the Bible to when God changed someones name it always has major significance) to Kepha and said upon this Kepha I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Christ instructed Peter to feed His sheep and he did.

Yes, I agree that Peter was head of the Church. I just don't believe he was the bishop of Rome.

[freakin a man]

Pacman,

First and foremost the New Testament was the issue taken up at the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD, quite a few years after the death of Constantine, when the church listed the 27 confirmed books of the New Testament. Both dates (Nicea & Hippo) are misleading because the church had recognized these books as the definative New Testament nearly 175 years BEFORE Nicea. It was only due to the challenge of missions, fraud, and heresy that the church leadership felt the need to clearly articulate the list.

We know from writings within the first century that many of the books of the New Testament were already regarded as scripture by that point. In the writings of Iraneus, 180 AD, he attests the canonical recognition of the four Gospels and Acts, of Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus, of 1 Peter, and 1 John, and of the book of Revelation- THAT'S MOST OF OUR NEW TESTAMENT DECIDED 150 YEARS BEFORE NICEA!!!

What are you talking about? Athanasius was the first to propose the 27 book New Testament canon. The best claim I have seen from people is that by 200 A.D. 20 of the 27 books of the New Testament has been accepted. Last time I checked my math skills, 20 does not equal 27. Also other books not found in the New Testament where accepted by many as being scripture. Even after the 27 book canon was drawn up, books like Revelation and Hebrews was still contested for centuries.

"[T]he early Christians used a Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. This translation . . . contained an expanded canon which included a number of the so-called "deuterocanonical" (or "apocryphal") books. Although there was some initial debate over these books, they were eventually received by Christians into the Old Testament canon.

In reaction to the rise of Christianity, the Jews narrowed their canons and eventually excluded the deuterocanonical books - although they still regarded them as sacred. The modern Jewish canon was not rigidly fixed until the third century A.D. Interestingly, it is this later version of the Jewish canon of the Old Testament, rather than the canon of early Christianity, that is followed by most modern Protestants today. When the Apostles lived and wrote, there was no New Testament and no finalized Old Testament....

[T]he first complete listing of New Testament books as we have them today did not appear until over 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. (The first complete listing was given by St. Athanasius in his Paschal Letter in A.D. 367.) . . . Most [early Christian] churches only had parts of what was to become the New Testament...

During the first four centuries A.D. there was substantial disagreement over which books should be included in the canon of Scripture. The first person on record who tried to establish a New Testament canon was the second-century heretic, Marcion. He wanted the Church to reject its Jewish heritage, and therefore he dispensed with the Old Testament entirely. Marcion's canon included only one gospel, which he himself edited, and ten of Paul's epistles. Sad but true, the first attempted New Testament was heretical." (Father A. James Bernstein "Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament," The Christian Activist, Vol. 9, Fall/Winter 1996, p. 1,4-7

You cited Iraneus but what about others like

Eusebius of Caesares: a Church historian, [A.D. 270-330] acceped 4 gospels, Acts, all of Paul's letters, 1 John, 1 Peter and 1 Clement. He considered Revelation to be questionable and did not view Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John as being scripture or canonical. (Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.24.15; 6.25.10)

Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.) considered the 4 Gospels above all other writing but considered Barnabas, Didache, I Clement, Revelation of Peter, the Shepherd, the Gospel according to the Hebrews as being canonical. He also used the Gospel of the Egyptians, Preaching of Peter, Traditions of Matthias, Sibylline Oracles, and the Oral Gospel. (Bruce Metzger, ed., The New Oxford Study Bible (New York: Oxford Press, 1977), p. 190).

[Paul Ray]

I'm a firm believer in the benefits of advertising.

... and here are some thoughts I think are worth considering.

That is true. If the Roman Catholic Church was ever the result of true church of Christ then any group that broke away from it was an apostate group.

I agree with that statement, but that's besides the point you were first arguing against.

If the Roman Catholic Church was NEVER a group of believers that compromised the true church of Christ, then the Roman Catholic church was simply an apostate group that either split off from the true church of Christ OR another group independent of the true church.

I agree with what I think you are thinking.

I agree with that too, if I understand you correctly.

I agree.

I believe there are a few similarities between the RCC and true Christianity, but, as you mentioned, there are some areas in which they stand out as being different.

I agree.

You seem to misunderstand what that statement is saying. Let's see if it helps if I rephrase it a little.

If the group of believers that later became known as the Roman Catholic church was ever the true church of Christ, then any group that broke away from that group (for whatever reason) while that group was the true church of Christ was an apostate group of the true church of Christ.

... which would mean, for example, that if Luther and those with him broke away from the group that is now known as the Roman Catholic Church while that group was the true church of Christ, then Luther and all those who separate(d) themselves from what is now known as the Roman Catholic Church with him (aka Lutherans) were/are apostates of the true church of Jesus Christ.

Of course, if the group that later became known as the Roman Catholic Church had never been the true church of Christ to begin with, or if it had ceased to be the true church of Christ before Luther had broke away, then the Roman Catholic Church and all the other groups that ever broke away from it were either apostate groups that had never been part of the true church of Christ or they broke away from it before it was itself apostate.

Which Evangelical Christian group(s) are you referring to, exactly?

Can you tell me about their history, or histories?

Ahh, I think I see now.

Do you see how that is different than going on the teachings of people who are alive today and who now have God's authority to act for God in today's world?

I believe the true church of Jesus Christ, today, is like the church of Jesus Christ of the past.

... and I think you and I disagree on that concept.

Again, I agree.

But from who or what did we get what is known as Evangelical Chrisitanity?

Do you have any reason to believe your group is the true church of Jesus Christ, and can you back that up with any basis in history?

Do you believe they took over what were your church buildings and historical documents too?

At what time did they do that, based on your personal perspective?

Please give me your version of history as you now understand it.

But what if it WAS at one time?

Would that have any bearing on who they are and who apostasized in the past?

I think it should, and I think we can find traces of what happened in history.

Do you really believe that?

If so, please tell me which Evangelical Christians now have the actual authority of God like the apostles once had in the past, including the authority to write to all churches to try to get them into harmony with what they know is the true word of God, and where I can read all that they have now written.

We (LDS) believe that, too, and the fact that some don't shows us they are not with us.

It's nice to meet you, Ocean. I love learning about all people, including Christians.

That's nice to know.

I believe it's okay to judge people, as long as we do not condemn them, at least not without having the authority to do that.

A civil judge has the authority to condemn criminals, for instance, as soon as the case has been settled.

IMO, you''ve only clarified YOUR stance on Roman Catholic claims (...) and the claims of some others who also believe as you do.

Bless you too, brother. I hope you have a good day.

[Chris Smith]

When weâ??re talking of authority, Hebrews 5:4 makes it pretty clear: â??And no man taketh this honourâ?¦but that he is called of God as Aaron.â?

What this says is that no one becomes a priest unless he's called by God (as, of course, Aaron was). Jesus has been called by God and become the final priest for all of us.

And we recognize it as a difference between the influence and Gift of the Holy Ghost. The influence of the Holy Ghost confirms truth, while the Gift of the Holy Ghost is the baptism by fire (for starters).

So you're arguing

A. That the baptism of the Holy Spirit comes by laying on of hands because that's how it always is in the Bible and

B. Indwelling events that don't occur by the laying on of hands aren't really the baptism of the Holy Spirit, because the baptism of the Holy Spirit must occur by laying on of hands.

Don't you see the circularity there? A because of B, and B because of A.

Surely you at least acknowledge that in the upper room, when tongues of fire descended, there was no laying on of hands. No?

Moreover, weâ??re speaking of authorityâ?¦which the Holy Ghost does not give. That idea is untenable.

Why is it "untenable" that the Holy Spirit gives authority? I think it's more untenable to suggest that priesthood-- which isn't even predicated in the NT of any Christian save Jesus himself-- is what gives authority.

Why not? Why didnâ??t Philip baptize him then? After Simon received baptism, he wondered after many of the works of Philip. Some time later (it seems) the Apostles came, and we get the distinct impression that the laying on of hands to give the Holy Ghost is something that he hadnâ??t seen before. Why wasnâ??t Philip participating in the action if he could?

For any number of possible reasons. Perhaps he just didn't feel these people were ready. Or perhaps his spiritual function/passion was as an evangelist, and he didn't feel particularly passionate or comfortable praying for them to receive the Holy Spirit. This happens very frequently in modern times. Someone like Billy Graham will go in and get people saved, and then other groups come in and build churches and do spiritual discipleship.

On the contrary (weâ??ve been through this), the â??churchâ? (which we agree mean its hierarchy) are to whom confession is done. The power, however, is specifically given to the disciples. Moreover, simply by noting the church we see a separation from those being spoken to from the general body of the church. In other words, the power to bind and seal CANNOT be said to have been given to the church because such distinction is failed to be made, where in other circumstances it is explicitly given.

In my opinion, that the "you" refers to believers in general is obviously implicit in this passage (as I explained in my previous post). We also are not in agreement that "the church" refers to the hierarchy. This was, after all, an age of house churches. In such small gatherings it would be much more feasible to bring an errant brother before the whole ekklesia. I see no particular reason to emend ekklesia (church) here to presbuteroi (elders).

So why does Paul expressly leave the possibility open, if it would under the OT law been impossible?

I'm sorry, what possibility?

Why not? Explain how you know he didnâ??t get it from Philip or via another source?

Acts 8:18-19: When Simon saw that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, saying, "Give me this power too, so that anyone I lay hands on may receive the Holy Spirit."

Obviously Simon had not received the Holy Spirit.

[Chris Smith]

It's telling that neither here nor anywhere else in the first two centuries of Christianity do we read about Christian "priesthood authority".

I find it more interesting that you know very little about the New Testament. I could give you more references, but you are able to speak for so many religions.

You have cowed me. I bow to your superior knowledge of the New Testament.

-CK